Stop limiting democracy of workers.
We live in a democratic society, which is repeatedly asked. Especially by politicians from right-wing political parties. In themselves, they are right when it comes to voting rights and the right to candidate. However, as an employee, there is another reality. A reality that the political parties have so far not been sufficiently aware of.
The freedom to change employer is limited. Contracts are increasingly forbidden to work for another employer. A Ban is always provided with an injunction without paying the judge. The Ban on working for other employer is also applied to people who do executive work. These workers have been forced to invalidate these unfair competition obligations through the courts.
It is more and more likely that in Constitution you will not be able to enter into a commitment in your leisure that affects your flexibility for the employer. It is necessary to request permission from the executive board to enter into commitments. A restriction on civil liberties that does not fit into a democratic society.
The tendency to treat the worker as property is increasing. It is quite clear that people with a call contract do have the obligation to be available if the employer needs them, but they do not get paid on it. In Essence, this is also the situation of temporary workers. If Zzp-ers are limited to work for other clients, that is a similar abuse.
In the s, employees had to deal with employer s’ contributions. Those Boetesystemen are limited by the legislature. A fine may not be more than 1/10 of a week, and a fine must not benefit the employer. However, these restrictions only apply to the minimum wage. For higher wages than the legal minimum, it does not apply.
In addition to the collective agreement or the collective agreement, the employer s’ employer s’ obligations are always covered by the obligations for workers without the right of the courts to enter. Fines for employees; never for the employer. In General, there is also a one-sided rule of law in the rules of procedure which allows the executive The fact that it is not possible and the workers must be asked for permission is always missing in the regulations. In Collective agreements, there are obligations for both employer and employee.
There is also an increasing number of times in the personeelsreglementen that everything is secret to your wages and working conditions of the company. In the event of dismissal, employer always tries to do so through a settlement. That is an agreement that the employee agrees to resign. Moreover, an employee has the right to resign to the need and accuracy by the uwv when it comes to redundancies for economic reasons and by the court of justice when it comes to the reasons for the reasons. There is often pressure on the worker to agree. The employer is always subject to confidentiality. Imposing secrecy on matters that are not secret does not fit into a democratic society.
It is time that, without being legally banned from the court of justice, the provisions applicable to workers who deserve the statutory minimum wage also apply to workers who earn more. Just as necessary it is that the offensive provisions that limit you to your leisure are legally prohibited. In my opinion, there is a need for confidentiality, in contracts and rules of procedure, with the exception of confidentiality of information. Openness and clarity apply to a democratic society. Penalties without interference from the courts, the, restrictions on worker s’ freedoms, should be eliminated.
Stop limiting democracy of workers by Dave Cremer